The Zoning Board of Appeals met on August 17th to review a request for a side yard setback variance for construction of a stable on a property on Aberdeen Drive, which was approved by the board. The menu of edited recordings by from the meeting can be accessed here.
August Zoning Board meeting recordings posted
August 28, 2015 by Barrington Hills Observer
Lawyer states a 5 stall barn (2,160 SF) on this 5 acre property is the MINIMUM SIZE necessary to support the land’s “equestrian value.” If that’s the case then what’s the maximum or optimal size? 10, 15, 20 stalls? If it were much larger I suspect the surrounding neighbors might have some questions before approving the variance.
If you knew something about horses and eqestrian land management 5 acres will not support 10-20 horses. So take the knot out of your knickers
Hmmmmm, then why allow it by code? Enlighten us to why a code would be written to allow abuse as opposed to setting practical standards good for the home occupation rights of neighbors. Are we inviting abuse? Seems that the code allows these limits, so relying on good faith “equestrian land management” is now in the hands of the individual home owner to decide with protection rights of neighbors destroyed by the LeCompte Text Amendment.
Knots in knickers? The new code allows 10 commercially boarded, plus as many “owned” (leased) horses on the lot in question wanted. Anyone caring to provide precise facts is welcome to weigh in and correct the facts.
Correction Alice!
It is the “Anderson Text Amendment”; not the “LeCompte Text Amendment”. As you may recall, former ZBA member Kurt Anderson at the 11th hour introduced his very own personal text amendment which was voted upon. This was done even though ZBA members, Wolfgram and myself stated on the record this last minute maneuver did not allow remaining ZBA board members and the public sufficient time to vet the impact Anderson’s proposal would have on existing 5-acre residential zoning standards. I recall Anderson stated on the record he drafted his text amendment alone in the dark of night.
The vote on the Anderson Amendment was 4-2, with ZBA members Freeman, Beckendorf, Anderson and Rosene voting “yes” (after my motion for continuance was denied by the same margin of 4-2) members Wolfgram and myself voting “no”. My recollection, ZBA member Chambers was absent.
The horse boarding legislative process was the triumph of misguided self-serving politics by a ZBA and BOT majority over the cry by a few for a deliberative and objective legislative process. The genesis of Anderson II Horse Boarding Amendment is no doubt rooted in the suspicious political activities by village government dating back to the 2011, Schuman letter.
The horseboarding amendment residents received is simply the fruit borne from this poisonous tree; its design never really intending to serve 5-acre residential zoning standards but instead assist Oakwood Farm in defense of its pending litigation. Anderson II does what the Schuman Letter ultimately failed to do for Oakwood Farm, and that is allow Oakwood Farm to assert the equitable defense of “mootness”.
This is why I motioned on the record at the beginning of the ZBA process that for the betterment of VBH residents, legislation of commercial boarding be stayed until the Oakwood Farm litigation was completely adjudicated. This sage advice was declined by both majorities at the time on the ZBA and BOT.